1. The petitioner is the respondent in a proceedings for maintenance filed by the respondent. The petitioner married the respondent on 16 9 62. A child was born to them in the wedlock. Alter the birth of the child, the respondent filed M C.15 of 1967 alleging that the petitioner was neglecting to maintain her and the child. By the time the above petition came up for disposal, H.M.A. 18 of 1967 had been filed by the petitioner against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, in the Sub Court, Trivandrum. The plea put forward by the respondent was that the petitioner had married a woman by name, Omana and was living with her. The Additional First Class Magistrate, who disposed of M.C 15 of 1967 observed:

"The main evidence to prove second marriage of C. P. is that of pw.1 and pw. 3. Both these witnesses are examined in HMA.18/67 of Sub Court, Trivandrum which is a suit instituted for restitution of conjugal rights by CP. against the petitioner and that suit is pending disposal. Their evidence has to be evaluated and appreciated by the Civil Court Viz„ Sub Court, Trivandrum and it will settle finally oneway or other of the conjugal rights of both parties and, ther